AMD teases new FX desktop chip

[Martini1991]

Still a damn good value option that Piledriver.

That's never been under contest though

 

[humbug]

Sure, I'll have a go when I get home. If you have the patience, all my settings are buried in the fx 8000 owners thread.

Thanks

 

[teppic]

It's good to see more benchmarks comparing overclocked 8350s. Since all the chips produced now overclock pretty well (4.5GHz+) it'd be nice to see AMD simply refresh the whole range with higher stock clocks, e.g. the 8320 bumped to 4GHz and the 8350 to 4.2GHz. It'd mean updated reviews using clock speeds closer to those that people actually tend to run on PD, rather than the stock clocks that hold them back quite a lot.

 

[pandem0nium]

This is basically what happened when they released the 9000 series / centurion cpus. Except they decided to add a ridiculous premium for doing it.

 

[joeyjojo]

That's never been under contest though

Was just curious how much better "value for money" PD is over DC (or put another way, how much Intel are milking people...). Wouldn't have guessed 50% though.

 

[d_brennen]

It's good to see more benchmarks comparing overclocked 8350s. Since all the chips produced now overclock pretty well (4.5GHz+) it'd be nice to see AMD simply refresh the whole range with higher stock clocks, e.g. the 8320 bumped to 4GHz and the 8350 to 4.2GHz. It'd mean updated reviews using clock speeds closer to those that people actually tend to run on PD, rather than the stock clocks that hold them back quite a lot.

I don't think PD is relevant enough these days to warranty doing such. I wouldn't be surprised if all the PD chips that will every be have already come out of the oven.

 

[cheesyboy]

Was just curious how much better "value for money" PD is over DC (or put another way, how much Intel are milking people...). Wouldn't have guessed 50% though.

Now I love AMD as much as the next guy, but there is a little more to it, to be fair. That power draw is no laughing matter.

And taking CPU price in isolation from system price doesn't really make sense (i.e. the price vs performance for a whole system tells a different tale)

 

[Martini1991]

Was just curious how much better "value for money" PD is over DC (or put another way, how much Intel are milking people...). Wouldn't have guessed 50% though.

The i7's not a price/performance product though.
And you can't really come up saying something like that just on handbrake though , it makes no sense.

There's no one percentage figure one can give for being better price/performance, or overall performance.

 

[joeyjojo]

Now I love AMD as much as the next guy, but there is a little more to it, to be fair. That power draw is no laughing matter.

And taking CPU price in isolation from system price doesn't really make sense (i.e. the price vs performance for a whole system tells a different tale)

Power draw is a non-issue. The 8320 uses about 136 W at load, the 4790K about 67 W. If you ran them both at full load every second of a year the difference would be about 604 KWh, which would cost you about £78. Only after about 20 months of solid 24/7 usage would the power consumption costs exceed the difference in price tag. Even render farms typically don't work that hard.

How does the system tell a different tale? The only difference in price between the systems would be the motherboard, and you can find motherboards for both at all price points. This is at stock remember. I know boards that can overclock an FX 83xx are premium.

The i7's not a price/performance product though.
And you can't really come up saying something like that just on handbrake though , it makes no sense.

There's no one percentage figure one can give for being better price/performance, or overall performance.

All true statements. Was just a quick illustration of price/performance I thought was interesting. Obviously you have to pick your benchmark for the job in hand.

 

[h91]

Unfortunately not going to make me upgrade. They don't offer (from what I've seen) enough of an improvement over the Phenom IIs. For me to get to any discernible difference I'd have to get the hex core which atm, not many things actually use all the cores. The FXs haven't moved forward. Bonus is that it uses the same socket and so saves money on upgrading the motherboards (depending) but whilst the chip itself is cheaper, won't entice people who want it for performance. The octa-core failure exemplifies that. They marketed it as having the best performance yet still performed below the i7s (and I think the i5s). Nothing much uses 8 cores let alone 4.

Likelyhood that people are still gonna use Intels. Me included.

 

[pandem0nium]

Thanks

Here ya go

Spoiler

Not sure if these were my final settings. This was with a h100 with 2 extra fans - stock fans in push, spectre pros in pull. I had a fan pointed at the vrms and another fan blowing inwards at the back of the board in the case mb cut out.

Prime95 blend stable for a few hours, max temp was 70 on the small ffts. Absolute fire breathing monster.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Aside from the negative comments it's still a side step from the fact that it is a great value choice. All I can see that are complaining are the ultra-enthusiasts (which if you care about raw end performance then you pay your premium) and the blue painted guys that pretend they want to be neutral tech.

The outlook for AMD in CPU's is still positive. You are just going to have to wait till they hit lucky with a die shrink and timing (for another competing high end option), or be a user that can utilise a HSA/APU that doesnt require enthusiast performance.

 

[cheesyboy]

Power draw is a non-issue. The 8320 uses about 136 W at load, the 4790K about 67 W. If you ran them both at full load every second of a year the difference would be about 604 KWh, which would cost you about £78. Only after about 20 months of solid 24/7 usage would the power consumption costs exceed the difference in price tag. Even render farms typically don't work that hard.

I was mostly looking at the respective overclocked figures in the eteknix link, since that's the prescribed way to go with the FX chips (to overclock them, I mean); it's pretty eye watering.

How does the system tell a different tale? The only difference in price between the systems would be the motherboard, and you can find motherboards for both at all price points. This is at stock remember. I know boards that can overclock an FX 83xx are premium.

System tells a different tale because a system with an i7 in will still cost £130 or so more than an fx-8 system, but that £130 is a smaller percentage of the whole.

Your calculation;
FX8350, 109 FPS, £138 = 0.790 FPS/£
i7-4790K, 142 FPS, £270 = 0.526 FPS/£

System calculation (assume other parts of £600);
FX8350, 109 FPS, £738 = 0.148 FPS/£
i7-4790K, 142 FPS, £870 = 0.163 FPS/£

FWIW, I'm AMD through and through (all of my desktop PCs have been and continue to be AMD).

 

[humbug]

Here ya go

Spoiler

Not sure if these were my final settings. This was with a h100 with 2 extra fans - stock fans in push, spectre pros in pull. I had a fan pointed at the vrms and another fan blowing inwards at the back of the board in the case mb cut out.

Prime95 blend stable for a few hours, max temp was 70 on the small ffts. Absolute fire breathing monster.

Thanks mate, its given me some new things to try

 

[joeyjojo]

System tells a different tale because a system with an i7 in will still cost £130 or so more than an fx-8 system, but that £130 is a smaller percentage of the whole.

AH I see what you mean. Good point.

 

[Phil2000]

I'm hoping AMD do up there game soon, my next big upgrade will be in 2016(cpu,motherboard and ram). It would be great if the performance is more comparable by then.